Behar answers

BeHar 5725

Alef.

1.  Sifra would seem to be drawing its inference from the word אחרי, i.e., only after he has actually been sold do we begin to arrange for his redemption.

2.  Sifra does not wish for the individual to employ a threat to receive money for himself. In the end, the redemption money will go to the individual who has paid for the poor person’s services, not the poor person himself.

3.  HaEmek Davar could claim that the phrase אחרי נמכר suggests that if “in the end he is preparing to sell himself”, or “since he is preparing to sell himself”, this must be thwarted and he must be redeemed by being given the means to remain independent.

4.  The Sifra seems to take the position that the community’s obligation to rescue such an individual begins only once he has actually sold himself.

HaEmek Davar posits that we should do all we can to prevent the situation from occurring in the first place.

Beit.

1.  לדחות אבן אחרי הנופל lit. to throw a stone once someone has fallen. In other words, instead of trying to lift the individual up, make sure that he stays down by putting a weight upon him. In this case, once the poor person has hit bottom by selling himself to an idolatrous temple, perhaps we should wash our hands of him and not try to redeem him. (But of course, this is rejected.)

2.  The Tora is protecting the poor person by encouraging his redemption even after he has placed himself in a very un-Jewish situation. It is also protecting the non-Jew who has “bought” the poor person by insisting that he be paid a fair, pro-rated price in order for his servant to be redeemed.

3.  A Jew who is sold to another Jew, has the option to leave after six years, whereas the Jew sold to the non-Jew must serve until Yovel, (the 5oth year) if no one redeems him. On the other hand, due to the fear that the Jew sold to the non-Jew will be corrupted by his serving in an idolatrous temple, as well as the Chillul HaShem that the Jew felt that he had no other option other than to sell himself into such a situation, the Tora conveys a more desperate attitude towards removing him from such a situation.

Gimel.

1.  The three sources reflect different concerns:

a) Kiddushin 20b By selling himself to an idolatrous Temple, you might think that he has shown such disloyalty to the Jewish people that we should wash our hands of him? קא משמע לן.  “I don’t have to redeem such a renegade from Judaism”

b) Bava Kamma 113a-b When you negotiate the Jew’s release from his non-Jewish master, you must deal fairly and ethically, rather than rationalize some sort of impropriety since you are engaged in a Mitzva, i.e., freeing the Jew. “I don’t have to pay the non-Jew; I can just help him escape or can swindle the master and in the end pay less than he deserves to receive.”

c) Klee Yakar הוה אמינא One waits until the non-Jew brutalizes the Jew before one has to redeem him, or if the non-Jewish master never brutalizes his Jewish servant, then you don’t redeem the Jew, קא משמע לן you redeem the Jew nevertheless. “I’ll just wait and see until the conditions in which the Jew finds himself become physically impossible.”

2.  a) Kiddushim 20b                   גאולה תהי' לו despite your displeasure with his decision

b) Bava Kamma 113a-b        וחשב you must make an exact computation

c) Klee Yakar              אחרי נמכר only after he has been sold, and brutalized

Daled.

ויקרא פרק כה

(מז) וְכִי תַשִּׂיג יַד גֵּר וְתוֹשָׁב עִמָּךְ וּמָךְ אָחִיךָ עִמּוֹ וְנִמְכַּר לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב עִמָּךְ אוֹ לְעֵקֶר מִשְׁפַּחַת גֵּר:

(מח) אַחֲרֵי נִמְכַּר גְּאֻלָּה תִּהְיֶה לּוֹ אֶחָד מֵאֶחָיו יִגְאָלֶנּוּ:

(מט) אוֹ דֹדוֹ אוֹ בֶן דֹּדוֹ יִגְאָלֶנּוּ אוֹ מִשְּׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ יִגְאָלֶנּוּ אוֹ הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ וְנִגְאָל:

(נ) וְחִשַּׁב עִם קֹנֵהוּ מִשְּׁנַת הִמָּכְרוֹ לוֹ עַד שְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל וְהָיָה כֶּסֶף מִמְכָּרוֹ בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים כִּימֵי שָׂכִיר יִהְיֶה עִמּוֹ:

(נא) אִם עוֹד רַבּוֹת בַּשָּׁנִים לְפִיהֶן יָשִׁיב גְּאֻלָּתוֹ מִכֶּסֶף מִקְנָתוֹ:

(נב) וְאִם מְעַט נִשְׁאַר בַּשָּׁנִים עַד שְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל וְחִשַּׁב לוֹ כְּפִי שָׁנָיו יָשִׁיב אֶת גְּאֻלָּתוֹ:

(נג) כִּשְׂכִיר שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה יִהְיֶה עִמּוֹ לֹא יִרְדֶּנּוּ בְּפֶרֶךְ לְעֵינֶיךָ:

(נד) וְאִם לֹא יִגָּאֵל בְּאֵלֶּה וְיָצָא בִּשְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ:

(נה) כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם:

The phrase מכסף מקנתו appears superfluous. Of course, the servant’s redemption will be based upon the amount of money that was paid to acquire him. Consequently, RaLBaG could be deriving from the extra word כסף that the redemption must be in the form of currency rather than some sort of equivalent.

Heh.

ויקרא פרק כה

(לה) וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ וּמָטָה יָדוֹ עִמָּךְ   וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ גֵּר וְתוֹשָׁב וָחַי עִמָּךְ:

(לו) אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּית וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹקיךָ וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ:

(לז) אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ:

(לח) אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לָתֵת לָכֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹקים: ס

לה וְכִֽי־יָמ֣וּךְ אָחִ֔יךָ וּמָ֥טָה יָד֖וֹ עִמָּ֑ךְ וְהֶֽחֱזַ֣קְתָּ בּ֔וֹ גֵּ֧ר וְתוֹשָׁ֛ב וָחַ֖י עִמָּֽךְ׃

1.  It seems to me that in order for the Ta’amim to reflect the Tora Temima’s interpretation, the Etnachta should have been under the word בו, rather than under the word עמך.

2.  It seems to me that the Girsa in Onkelos that appears in our Chumashim is closer to the Ta’amim than RaMBaN’s text of Onkelos. According to RaMBaN’s version, גר ותושב describe אחיך and therefore does not constitute a separate category or status of person. But according to the Ta’amim, it would appear that גר ותושב is referring to a different category of person, in contrast to אחיך which accords with the Rabbinic interpretation.